3 ms·

the cavalier attitude this article shows towards inferring character assessments based on metrics makes me feel uneasy. given the equally casual approach most

by n_time 11y ago

the cavalier attitude this article shows towards inferring character assessments based on metrics makes me feel uneasy. given the equally casual approach most technologists have towards embedding user behaviours into applications, the potential feedback loop of many companies deliberately creating habits in users, and then other firms judging those people based on their collected habits is distressing. instead of sneaking malware and pop ups on to your computer as you browse, the malware is installed inside of you, as habits. there's no glaring pop up telling me there's something wrong with my windows license. having uninstalled my social apps for several weeks now, i still find myself turning the phone on and staring at the homescreen for a few seconds. my eyes dully glazed over. it's more insidious than the popup, which i could close with a click. with this, i have to be mindful, and grab back the reins of my body. the process is internal. given the research on the involuntary nature of habits, i question the ethics of creating these behaviours at all. is it ethical to create involuntary behaviours in your users? is it ethical to judge users for behaviours deliberately created in them by applications? should the attention of users be better protected? can we start developing consumer applications that aren't deliberately designed to capitalise on the attention of their users? how can we educate people to navigate a world of applications designed to hold and capitalise on their attention? media awareness class in high school did not prepare me for this brave new world. :P

karmacondon 11y ago
is it ethical to create involuntary behaviours in your users? Yes. Coke, McDonalds, The Gap and every other consumer company try like hell to create involuntary behaviors in people all the time. is it ethical to judge users for behaviours deliberately created in them by applications? Yes. Other than the specificity of the words "by applications", this is what credit scores are designed to do. Madison Avenue in deliberately trying to create behaviors in all of us. A credit rating measures a person's ability to resist that when it isn't financially sound. should the attention of users be better protected? No, at least not for adults of sound mind. People are free to make their own decisions, whether that's doing a keg stand or spending 3 hours clicking a button on Farmville. People can be warned about potential dangers, but it probably won't have much of an effect. can we start developing consumer applications that aren't deliberately designed to capitalise on the attention of their users? Yes. Or at least, you and anyone else who wants to can. But making products that people use frequently is a common definition of success. Most comapnies aren't going to pass that up because some people have addictive personalities. how can we educate people to navigate a world of applications designed to hold and capitalise on their attention? Good luck with that. Education vs the Forces of Capitalism. Winner: Capitalism.
- jshorty 11y ago
  That it's common for companies to seek to develop involuntary behavior in consumers in no way implies it's ethically sound, just that it's done.
- n_time 11y ago
  > Yes. Coke, McDonalds, The Gap and every other consumer company try like hell to create involuntary behaviors in people all the time. The appeal to authority that you have connected to the actions of corporations in regard to ethics does not answer the question I posed. If you want to discuss these companies in particular, I would say that they have all violated what are considered good ethics many times. Is their creation of involuntary habits ethical? > No, at least not for adults of sound mind. What about children and teenagers then? We ban them from cigarettes and gambling. How about apps that are designed like a VLT? > Farmville Wasn't Farmville found to be targeting lonely retirees of questionably sound mind? > Yes. Or at least, you and anyone else who wants to can. But making products that people use frequently is a common definition of success. Most comapnies aren't going to pass that up because some people have addictive personalities. The destination of my question was regulation surrounding technology and addictive software. I am not an American, so this notion is not anathema to me. :) > Good luck with that. Education vs the Forces of Capitalism. Winner: Capitalism. This is just so cynical it hurts me.

by n_time 11y ago

karmacondon 11y ago

is it ethical to create involuntary behaviours in your users? Yes. Coke, McDonalds, The Gap and every other consumer company try like hell to create involuntary behaviors in people all the time. is it ethical to judge users for behaviours deliberately created in them by applications? Yes. Other than the specificity of the words "by applications", this is what credit scores are designed to do. Madison Avenue in deliberately trying to create behaviors in all of us. A credit rating measures a person's ability to resist that when it isn't financially sound. should the attention of users be better protected? No, at least not for adults of sound mind. People are free to make their own decisions, whether that's doing a keg stand or spending 3 hours clicking a button on Farmville. People can be warned about potential dangers, but it probably won't have much of an effect. can we start developing consumer applications that aren't deliberately designed to capitalise on the attention of their users? Yes. Or at least, you and anyone else who wants to can. But making products that people use frequently is a common definition of success. Most comapnies aren't going to pass that up because some people have addictive personalities. how can we educate people to navigate a world of applications designed to hold and capitalise on their attention? Good luck with that. Education vs the Forces of Capitalism. Winner: Capitalism.

jshorty 11y ago
That it's common for companies to seek to develop involuntary behavior in consumers in no way implies it's ethically sound, just that it's done.
n_time 11y ago
> Yes. Coke, McDonalds, The Gap and every other consumer company try like hell to create involuntary behaviors in people all the time. The appeal to authority that you have connected to the actions of corporations in regard to ethics does not answer the question I posed. If you want to discuss these companies in particular, I would say that they have all violated what are considered good ethics many times. Is their creation of involuntary habits ethical? > No, at least not for adults of sound mind. What about children and teenagers then? We ban them from cigarettes and gambling. How about apps that are designed like a VLT? > Farmville Wasn't Farmville found to be targeting lonely retirees of questionably sound mind? > Yes. Or at least, you and anyone else who wants to can. But making products that people use frequently is a common definition of success. Most comapnies aren't going to pass that up because some people have addictive personalities. The destination of my question was regulation surrounding technology and addictive software. I am not an American, so this notion is not anathema to me. :) > Good luck with that. Education vs the Forces of Capitalism. Winner: Capitalism. This is just so cynical it hurts me.